Isnt it called the M1IP and not the IPM1?
IRL yes, in game it’s IPM1
2 Likes
Of course, just making a remark about how many shells (even in downtiers) can deal with CR2’s UFP as a way to say it’s pretty situational and relies on coin flips.
Yeah I understand that.
Just tried to explain how armor might be a thing a player would consider when it doesn’t hamper his mobility as much and when that armor actually works against most rounds at it’s tier.
Even for the best of players.
Challenger 2E actually gets decent mobility, so it’s pretty different from other “siblings” though.
They definitely don’t belong in the same bucket as the best 12.7s, but I’d love them to go to 13.0 first.
CR2 at 11.7 is pretty stacked against 10.7s, losing only in mobility and gun handling (to some).
I worded that one poorly.
Uparmored Leopards can eat an average round with their UFP, while Challengers can only do that with their cheeks.
I meant the system of how they’re determined by using averages and not stats from best 0.01%.
Yeah, just don’t overdo it. Use it appropriately.
I mean, you’re effectively describing the TTD. Its armour is effectively useless at / above its BR, but it can work very well against mobile 9.3s and most of 9.0s.
TTD is much less mobile than the Leo 2K, but I believe they should both be 10.3.
Well, it’s still below the average of 12.7:
T-90M is abysmal and should really be 12.3.
VT4/A1 are also abysmal, and should probably be 11.7 and 12.0 respectively.
It’s possibly the second slowest (Western) MBT at top tier, next to the Merkava Mk.4B and SEP V1 / V2 (with add-on package)
I think that would be reasonable. Then the 12.0 M1A2s can go to 12.7 without them being considered ‘top tier’, and the Leclerc and the other unimpressive 12.3s / 12.7s can stay at their own BR.
Yup. Should it go to 12.0 or is the bad mobility (though good reverse speed) and relatively bad gun handling (for a NATO MBT) really enough to keep it at 11.7?
Oh, for sure.
Though the benefit of the 11.7 Chally 2 is that it gets to face 10.7s and rarely ever any 12.7s.
I think you’d want to look at both. Otherwise you end up with the Clickbait at 12.0 and the T-72AV (TURMST) at 10.3.
1 Like
Definitely, TTD gets some useful armor while not losing that much mobility, especially in downtiers.
Yeah, I was comparing 2E with other Challengers which are just abysmal.
Agreed.
I think it’s better suited for 11.7 than 12.0, but that’s just my opinion on it.
Yeah, it definitely gets some easy matchups when going against 10.7s.
What do you mean ?
1 Like
Well, currently the Clickbait (and all the 12.0 Abrams) are undertiered probably because of the fact that majority of Clickbait players are pretty inexperienced and the Clickbait isn’t really forgiving due to the fact that it doesn’t have the best all-round armour, unlike Eastern MBTs, and they don’t have an autoloader that can load just as well irrespective of crew levels, qualification, and number.
The TURMST, on the other hand, is arguably overtiered at 10.3… having T-72A levels of UFP protection (though K-1 can help a bit), which is much worse than the T-72B’s / T-72B (1989)'s UFP… for the access of Gen 2 thermals. I don’t think that’s a reasonable side-grade, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the average stats on the TURMST is better than the Clickbait’s.
1 Like
It’s not. I have it and it does perfectly fine. The round alone should qualify it for 10.3, as no 9.0s need to see 3BM42. It’s armor isn’t amazing but it’s still at least as good as the Abrams, and can tank shots surprisingly well. It’s got decent mobility and a great gun+fcs.
The click bait is also decent (going off the TT variant, at least). I want it to stay 12.0 though because I’m mean and unfair and I want it to be easy to play.
Ah, but the Sabra’s 6s reload M322 (which can pen up to 588mm) is okay?
What about the M60 AMBT’s 6.7s reload KE-W (which can pen up to 581mm)?
Turret cheeks are much better, but the turret armour overall isn’t great since the breech and commander / gunner optics can be easily penetrated.
The hull armour of the Abrams has an autoricochet UFP for pretty much any range, and the LFP is roughly ~390mm - ~420mm thick, which is much better than the TURMST’s UFP of ~370mm and abysmal ~200mm LFP… not to mention the driver’s port that can’t really be easily hidden.
The only caveat to the Abrams’ armour is the fact that the turret ring is quite large and only ~68mm thick, though the main benefit of the Abrams is the reload speed, gun handling, and mobility… all of which the TURMST lacks.
Its acceleration isn’t anything special to be honest.
The top speed is only 60km/h and the reverse speed is aweful.
I’d say it’s even worse than the Sabra’s in most cases since at least the Sabra can reverse out of some situations.
The only redeeming quality of it compared to the other 10.3 Russian MBTs.
I don’t think we can argue against it going up just because you want it to stay there 😅
I know I’d love to have the TURMS III stay at 8.3 but that wouldn’t sit right with me.
1 Like
Hence the “mean and unfair” portion lol
(I’ll respond to your other points in a minute I’m just currently cooking breakfast lmao)
Yeah I understood that 😂
Both of which have worse armor and a drastically larger outlines. For the M60 AMBT, someone can take it out with a 57mm APHE frontally. Also, both lack an autoloader- so if they get down to 2 crew, that reload is now, what, 12 seconds minimum? Also the AMBT is rare enough that it is not a great argument. Both are also drastically less mobile then the T-72AV. The T72AV is 125% more mobile than the Sabra.
The Turret is drastically better. Even the breech isn’t that bad right now because for some reason Trunnions are modelled so that Volumetric struggles with them.
The UFP of the Abrams is such a drastically small area that even the auto-ricocheted doesn’t really matter- especially compared to the LFP of the Abrams which is, put kindly, huge. Plus the turret ring, the combo is really imo equivalent to the Abrams, or if it is worth a BR decrease certainly no more of a decrease then .3.
Its acceleration is decent. Never said it was special but it gets the job done decently well and moves you when it matters.
Reload, pen and gun handling of the sabra >>>> mobility and armor of the TURMS.
The TURMS armor gets mostly canceled out at 10.3-10.7 since it’s weak thus you are stuck with a tank with better (but still mediocre) mobility and worse in the other aspects.
1 Like
The armour (other than the turret cheeks / breech) of the TURMST isn’t exactly special at 10.3 anyways, let alone 10.0.
The only real benefit compared to the Sabra’s is that you can’t really die to autocannons nearly as easily with the TURMST.
That’s true, though 6s / 6.7s reload (along with the better reverse speed / gun depression) can often prevent you from getting shot in the first place.
Maybe, though I’d rather look at every case instead of only the ones found in the tech tree.
Sabra:
T-72AV TURMST:
M60 AMBT:
So Sabra is obviously less mobile than the other two, though -11 KM/H in reverse is a whole lot better than the TURMST’s -4km/h.
Between the AMBT and the TURMST, the AMBT has better acceleration and much better reverse speed, so I’d say the TURMST isn’t really that much more mobile compared to the Sabra (acceleration and top speed but lacks reverse speed), and definitely not as mobile as the AMBT.
If you only look at top speed, sure.
Though mobility isn’t just top speed alone.
Well, I agree that the trunnions made it such that breech shots are way less reliable.
Though the forehead is still a huge weakspot that the Abrams doesn’t have:
I’d say the UFP (excluding the turret ring) of the Abrams is roughly 20% of the armour profile whereas the LFP is closer to 28%.
So ~20% of it is an autoricochet and ~28% of it is ~390mm - ~420mm thick.
Compared to the TURMST:
I’d say ~21% of its armour is the LFP, whereas ~28% is the UFP (excluding the drivers port)
So ~21% of it is 165mm and ~28% is ~380mm.
If you look at only the hull, the Abrams’ hull is much better.
If you just look at the turret armour and gun + fcs, it may look like it.
But the mobility, reload, gun depression, and gun handling makes the Abrams generally better.
My problem with the TURMST is that its only way of surviving shots somewhat reliably is trying to stay hull down (which it can’t since it has no gun depression or reverse speed) or to outreload the enemy (enemies), which it can’t do either.
If you compare it to the T-72A, it’s effectively only has the FCS and round going for it.
Everything else (except K-1) is the same.
Is 3BM42, FCS and K-1 really worth a 1.0 BR difference?
But then you look at the T-72B / T-72B(1989) which have 3BM42, K-1 + much better composite / K-5 + much better composite… so is the FCS really equal to the much better UFP / Turret armour?
What about the T-64B, which has K-1, better UFP composite, 3BM42, and a 6s reload?
It’s not special but it works. And not dying to autocannons is HUGE when half of what is faced at that BR is autocannons, on both sides.
This is also true.
I can understand this and that is a fair sentiment.
Sure, but I can think of plenty of maps where having that extra 12kmh to me is more important than acceleration.
True, but the T-72AV doesn’t have that giant turret ring that can be front penned by anything. And while it does have the autoloader, it lacks the horizontal turret drive basket that the Abrams has (and shouldn’t).
I can understand this, but I will say having a smaller LFP (literally, not % wise) is absolutely helpful especially in tiny head on maps. It isn’t going to survive everything- nothing is at 10.3-10.7. But it survives enough. I’d certainly rather try facing an Abrams/120S in a TURMS than facing a TURMS in an Abrams/120S (120S should be able to just bonk it anywhere BUT for some reason my luck with the UFP is incredibly poor).
Overall, the K1, FCS, and 3BM42 is worth a 1.0 BR difference in my opinion. I wouldn’t say the T-72A is perfect, but I would argue it is among the stronger 9.3s. Giving it ERA makes it stronger- especially against missiles and chem munitions. The FCS makes it drastically easier to target people. And the 3BM42 makes it easy to pen
I doubt Click Bait is the reason those tanks stay at 12.0, as HC isn’t performing that better in the last several months.
Compare their stats to the likes of 2A5 or 2PL sitting at 12.3, and it should be obvious all those vehicles could share the same BR.
If we don’t count the last few months because of BMPT spam, TURMS at 10.3 had worse stats than CB at 12.0.
3 Likes
This makes no sense, as 3BM42 equivalent is already found at 9.3.
Sorry but 9.3 levels of mobility isn’t decent at 10.3.
Struggling with it’s UFP while using M829A1 is a skill issue and a big one.
3 Likes
And M833 equivalents are at 9.0. So should the Abrams be 10.3?
So… the Sabra with its 6.7 Mobility should be 8.7 then, yes?
Again. It’s not that I’m aiming at bad spots. I’ve run them through the replay and it says it should have penned. That said, the game has some pretty inconsistent mechanics, so it doesn’t always work when it should. Hence the luck part.
So 9.0s are fine seeing 3BM42 equivalent if it isn’t from the USSR ?
Re-read my comment.
M829A1 doesn’t need to aim on TURMS’ hull.
2 Likes
It only really works when you manage to get hull-down with it, or if the enemy tank doesn’t have a round capable of penning ~380mm of RHA, which isn’t a lot considering most 9.3s already get ~390mm besides the ultra-mobile tanks like the XM-1 and Type 16 (FPS).
Most, if not, all 9.7s, 10.0s, and 10.3s / 10.7s (besides the Abrams) have ~390mm of pen.
That isn’t a whole lot for a tank that has to rely on its armour.
If you compare it to the TTD, sure its turret cheeks are much worse, but its UFP is effectively just as good, and it actually has mobility, gun depression, gun handling, and reload (assuming it’s aced) to make up for it and it (was) sitting at 10.3… now 10.0.
For the Sabra, everything is worse other than the reverse speed.
If you’re talking about the M60 AMBT, the only thing the T-72AV has over it is an extra 2km/h of top speed… at the cost of acceleration and much worse reverse speed.
The turret ring is a big problem with the Abrams, I agree, but its armour isn’t the main thing it should be relying on, unlike for the T-72AV, which doesn’t have a good reload, nor gun depression, nor reverse speed to substitute the (lacklustre) armour with.
I think that helps a lot in long-range maps and if you have good gun depression (which the TURMST doesn’t), though it isn’t as effective in close-range maps, which are most maps to begin with.
Other than the fuel tanks (which is a gamble) and the gunner + commander being on opposite sides of the turret, I don’t think you’re surviving much especially when most things can penetrate and kill at least one crew member every time, let alone detonate your ammo since you can’t get into hard cover (whether it be hills or buildings).
You effectively have to gamble that the person misses their shot and that you can reload in time for a potential second encounter.
I mean, it really depends on how capable said TURMST and 120S / Abrams player is.
The best player in a TURMST isn’t going to do any better than the best player in the 120S / Abrams in majority of cases. It just doesn’t have the highest skill ceiling and potential.
For an average player, though, I wouldn’t be surprised if a TURMST can be more of a threat than the 120S / Abrams since defencing positioning and situational awareness would be a problem for the typical 120S player and offensive positioning, situational awareness, and aiming would be a problem for the typical Abrams player.
I don’t think the T-72A’s armour is particularly strong at 9.3, let alone any BRs higher, though it’s good in a downtier.
That being said, T-72A-level armour at 10.3 is abysmal… regardless of the K-1 protection.
The K-1 definitely helps against ATGMs (even Tandem Warheads for some reason) but it is not nearly as reliable as something like the T-64B’s, or T-72B’s, or T-72B (1989)'s.
You haven’t really explained to me how the FCS equates to much better hull armour…
The problem with adding K1, FCS, and 3BM42 to the already lacklustre UFP armour of the T-72A (coupled with no improvement to acceleration, reverse speed, nor top speed) makes it extremely squishy and extremely punishing.
Sure the turret cheeks are still good, but like I said before, that’s the only thing you can really rely on… and it’s not like you can get hull-down that often because of the bad gun depression and the fact that its forehead is still quite an easy and reliable weakspot.
I would rather play the Sabra, which is 10.0 and has gun depression, a 6s reload, much better round, gun handling, and reverse speed to at least work well in a defensive / hull-down position.
The T-72AV cannot play offensively (lacks the hull armour / gun handling / top speed / reload) or defensively (lacks the gun depression and the reverse speed) at 10.3, let alone 10.0…